Conceptions of Justice/Fairness Scale

From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki

This page is for interested and knowledgable psychology researchers to brainstorm on how to create an individual difference measure that allows us to study what people believe is fair and just. Feel free to edit things, though not all edits will be accepted or put into the final scale.

There is a discussion page here for interested parties to talk about items as well. Opportunities for credit/authorship abound! The goal is to develop a scale that we'll eventually collect data on using yourmorals.org and perhaps using a sample near you.

2) Distributive Justice - Equity Theory - Things are distributed according to an "equity rule" which may be effort, ability, productivity, etc... "who should get what" Major cites/theorists: William Damon....] Equity - "people who contribute more should get more" [Major cites/theorists: Walster, equity theory.] This includes variations in effort ("contributions are defined by putting in more work") and Ability/Product ("contributions are defined by ability/objective worth of end product")

4) Distributive Justice - Need - "people who need more should get more" [Jon thinks this must be cut; need draws on the harm/care foundation. it is a very artificial extension of fairness to say that it is only "fair" to give people what they need]

7) Retributional Justice - There is evidence that punishing people for doing bad is different than rewarding people for doing good. As such, some kind of vengefulness measure might be necessary to capture the full scope of justice/fairness judgements.

More Notes:

For extended discussions of the many conflicting versions of fairness, see:
--Alan Fiske, 1991, on how the "Equality Matching" model is implemented
--Walter, Walster, and Berscheid, on equity theory
--William Damon on the development of various forms of fairness

Possible other candidates:

Punishment Orientation/Retributive Justice? - Is this just a form of negative Equity? Or are positive Equity (getting rewarded for doing good) and negative Equity (getting punished for doing bad) subject to individual difference measures? Perhaps the Harm foundation interacts with these appraisals? Perhaps we should measure this and see what the statistics reveal...

Reciprocity - How does this fit in? As Equity or Equality?

Restorative Justice - This seems to bleed into ideas of helping people and/or not harming them rather than pure fairness.

So given these constructs, I feel like the next step is to look at existing measures and see which constructs are represented.

Existing scales

Here we can look at existing scales and comment on which factors items might load on....in addition to those factors from the above section, items might be open to interpretation and load on the general "fairness/justice" idea that a person has in their head at that time. So a person who believes in equality will actually be answering a different question than someone who believes in equity when asked "is this fair?".

Colquitt 2001 Scale

Following on his meta-analysis, Colquitt created this scale which measures procedural, distributive, interactional, and informational justice.

Procedural justice
The following items refer to the procedures used to arrive at your (outcome). To what extent:
1. Have you been able to express your views and feelings during those procedures?
2. Have you had influence over the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures?
3. Have those procedures been applied consistently?
4. Have those procedures been free of bias?
5. Have those procedures been based on accurate information?
6. Have you been able to appeal the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures?
7. Have those procedures upheld ethical and moral standards?

Distributive justice
The following items refer to your (outcome). To what extent:
1. Does your (outcome) reflect the effort you have put into your work?
2. Is your (outcome) appropriate for the work you have completed?
3. Does your (outcome) reflect what you have contributed to the organization?
4. Is your (outcome) justified, given your performance?

Interpersonal justice
The following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the procedure). To what extent:
1. Has (he/she) treated you in a polite manner?
2. Has (he/she) treated you with dignity?
3. Has (he/she) treated you with respect?
4. Has (he/she) refrained from improper remarks or comments?

Informational justice
The following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the procedure). To what extent:
1. Has (he/she) been candid in (his/her) communications with you?
2. Has (he/she) explained the procedures thoroughly?
3. Were (his/her) explanations regarding the procedures reasonable?
4. Has (he/she) communicated details in a timely manner?
5. Has (he/she) seemed to tailor (his/her) communications to individuals' specific needs?

They gave students a short vignette about students who received the same number of points in a dictation in their native language and asked whether...

Equality Both should receive the same grade.

Need The student who needs a better grade to move up to the next year should receive a better grade.

Equity The student who made more of an effort should receive the better grade.

The Uber Justice/Fairness Scale

Instructions

Some people feel that some situations are more wrong than others. Using the below scale, answer these questions as best you can as to how wrong a particular situation feels to you. These are not real situations, so there is no need to think too much about the possibilites. Instead, please answer for the general case and go with your first instinct.

Procedural Justice

An employee gives a job to someone they know without advertising the job to other candidates.

A person controls or dominates someone else.

A law is made without the input of all affected parties.

A manager makes a decision that is biased by personal feelings.

A punishment is applied inconsistently with arbitrary exceptions.

Distributive Justice - Equality

A child inherits a lot of money while another child inherits nothing.

A bonus is given to a work team for good performance and the money is not divided equally.

An employee earns a lot of money while another earns very little.

A law is made that treats some people differently than others.

Distributive Justice - Need

A raise is given to a worker, when another worker needs it more.

A free meal is given to the rich, rather than to the hungry.

An employee who needs their job, is fired.

A poor person does not have their basic needs met.

A law is passed that fails to take into account the poor and needy.

Distributive Justice - Equity - Effort & Ability/Production

A company bonus is given without considering the relative contributions of each employee.

A law is passed that penalizes productive members of society.

A person who contributes more to society is not rewarded.

A baker bakes a cake, but other people eat it before the baker can enjoy it.

Interpersonal justice

A manager makes a decision without treating affected parties politely.

A person is not treated with dignity.

An employee hears improper remarks or comments in the workplace.

Informational justice

A trial is decided with untruthful information.

A negotiation occurs without everyone understanding the process.

A law is passed without any information as to the process for the law's creation.

A punishment is given out without any explanation of the reason.

Retributive Justice - Punishment Orientation

A person commits a crime and goes unpunished.

A murderer receives a short jail term.

A criminal experiences less punishment than the criminal's victim.

A criminal commits a crime, writes a book about it, and becomes rich.

A person who commits a crime is forgiven, and receives no punishment.

Credit/Authorship

Just to be clear and provide incentives to participate....

While I (Ravi) don't know where this project will lead, so I can't guarantee this, my goal is to have this project be a large collaboration with liberal credit awarded. If you contribute significantly to this page and it ends up in my control, I'll at least add your contribution as a footnote. If you can do data analysis, contribute a lot to the scale design, collect a sample, or help write the eventual paper, then there is likely an opportunity to be an author as long as you don't mind being on a paper with lots of others.

People to thank for providing input

(feel free to add yourself here)

Kees van den Bos
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology
Utrecht University

Equity Theory - Walster, Walster and Berscheid 1978

At the risk of gross oversimplification, equity theory is premised on the relatively straightforward notion that individuals possess certain normative expectations about what is considered fair and just in any given situation. (Walster, Walster and Berscheid 1978). When that innate sense of equity and fair play is violated, victims tend to choose a strategy or technique which will most easily enable them to restore balance as they perceive it. Simple examples suffice: If he hits you, just hit him back. If she does it again, tell the teacher. If he blasts that horn at me one more time, I swear I'll slam on my brakes.

Which technique is employed can be seen as a function of its availability as well as its perceived cost to the user. Such costs, of course, may include psychological ones. In the examples above, for instance, hitting back may not be in the repertoire of socially acceptable behaviors. Alternatively, the probability of receiving a black eye in response may be considered too great a cost for physical retaliation. From the range of available equity restoring options, a cost-benefit calculation is made&emdash;sometimes very quickly&emdash;and a response is selected that suits the victim. The theory holds, further, that the less costly an equity-restoring technique, the more likely it will be used. If community norms encourage clan conferencing, elder councils, or other reparative processes, these methods will most likely be chosen.

While there are benefits to participation in a face-to-face encounter, there are also costs. Clearly, for some individuals the cost of participation, in terms of psychological anxiety, is not enough to offset the benefits of economic compensation or psychological equity provided through emotional closure. Equity theory suggests that examining issues of costs&emdash;particularly perceived psychological costs as well as perceived availability of the equity restoring technique&emdash;may be useful for exploring victim-offender mediation participation rates.

Victims who participate in face-to-face meetings may have simply adopted (or grown up with) a value orientation consistent with reparative/restorative options. In other words, participation in a victim-offender mediation program may make sense culturally and therefore represent a less costly choice. For example, many of these programs have strong developmental ties to the Mennonite Church, with its long tradition of peacemaking and alternative approaches to conflict and disputes. Within the victims’ movement itself there remains a strong, biblically-based component which speaks to the necessity of reconciliation and alternative means for obtaining social justice that are outside traditional institutions. Indeed, "system-based" programs may even be viewed with a certain amount of healthy skepticism.

Some victims may choose to participate in an alternative approach because of negative associations from prior experiences with the established criminal justice system. For others, the psychological costs of re-encountering the offender may simply be perceived as too high and they will decline participation. There will be some, however, for whom obtaining closure through a face-to-face encounter may be more appealing (psychologically less costly) than the established system. Using equity theory as an explanatory framework clearly requires us to gain a better understanding of the kinds of costs victims associate with meeting their offender versus the rewards that may be obtained by them from such encounters. Narrative theory, discussed below, is proposed as the framework that can integrate these discussions.

Fiske's Equality Matching

Jon suggested looking at this for ideas....perhaps support for a "reciprocity" factor within Equity?

"People use just four fundamental models for organizing most aspects
of sociality most of the time in all cultures . These models are
Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Equality Matching, and Market
Pricing.

In Equality Matching relationships people keep track of the balance
or difference among participants and know what would be required to
restore balance. Common manifestations are turn-taking, one-person
one-vote elections, equal share distributions, and vengeance based
on an-eye-for-an-eye, a-tooth-for-a-tooth. Examples include sports
and games (EM with respect to the rules, procedures, equipment and
terrain), baby-sitting coops (EM with respect to the exchange of
child care), and restitution in-kind (EM with respect to righting a
wrong).

From 2001 Meta-analysis in organizational justice

process
control (i.e., control over the presentation of their arguments and
sufficient time to present their case). This process control effect is
often referred to as the "fair process effect" or "voice" effect (e.g.,
Folger, 1977; Lind & Tyler, 1988), and it is one of the most
replicated findings in the justice literature. Indeed, Thibaut and
Walker (1975) virtually equated process control with procedural
justice (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998).
Although Thibaut and Walker (1975) introduced the concept of
procedural justice, their work focused primarily on disputant reactions
to legal procedures. Although a focus on justice and law
continues to be of interest to scholars (e.g., Tyler, 1990), Leventhal
and colleagues can be credited for extending the notion of procedural
justice into nonlegal contexts such as organizational settings
(Leventhal, 1980; Leventhal et al., 1980). In doing so, Leventhal
and colleagues also broadened the list of determinants of procedural
justice far beyond the concept of process control. Leventhal's
theory of procedural justice judgments focused on six criteria that
a procedure should meet if it is to be perceived as fair. Procedures
should (a) be applied consistently across people and across time,
(b) be free from bias (e.g., ensuring that a third party has no vested
interest in a particular settlement), (c) ensure that accurate information
is collected and used in making decisions, (d) have some
mechanism to correct flawed or inaccurate decisions, (e) conform
to personal or prevailing standards of ethics or morality, and (f)
ensure that the opinions of various groups affected by the decision
have been taken into account.